The technique
employed by mainstream news sources in regard to recent worldwide
attention given to “911- IPS – The Directors Cut” has
become predictable and expected. “Conspiracy theorists,” “fringe
groups,” “right/left wing extremists,” are just a few of the stock
labels used to discredit or negate any opinions contrary to the official
stories promoted by government officials and mainstream media. In most
cases, the offending opinion is ignored and the process of attrition is
allowed to run its course until the unapproved notion is forgotten or
lapses into obscurity. Otherwise, “respectable” researchers and a
legion of experts whose testimony is ostensibly unimpeachable attack the
unpopular concept. The latter methodology is utilized when either the
“conspiracy theory” begins to gain popularity and/or when the
credibility of the official story is threatened. The current issue of
“Popular Mechanics” (PM) and the follow up promo piece on CNN’s
“Anderson Cooper’s 360” where he interviewed James Meigs, chief
editor of PM magazine, are textbook examples of what some are now calling
“desperation damage control.”

The
recent release of “911 IPS – The Director’s Cut” has
cast a dark shadow of doubt on the official story of 9/11. Unlike the
approach utilized by the mainstream media, where the viewer/reader is told
what they are seeing by “officials” and “experts,” the viewer of
“911 IPS” is simply shown video clips and photos from
mainstream sources, challenged to ask honest questions, use common sense,
and come to their own conclusions. After all, one doesn’t have to be a
certified, registered and licensed pyrotechnic expert to have a valid
claim of fire. This approach is apparently why there has been such an
effort to discredit those who dare to think outside the “cage”. PM
magazine attempted to refute many of the assertions made by other 911
researchers, but this article will deal only with the issues that were
raised in “911 IPS”

“1.
Where’s The Pod?” PM
magazine and others claim that the simple reflection of the fairing is
what we are seeing in the CNN video clip and photos referenced. Basic
physics and common sense should tell you that a reflection is seen from
only one angle, not two. We have had numerous airline pilots contact us
after viewing the video and have stated that the anomaly could not have
been the fairing because it protrudes beyond the front of the wing. The
CNN video clip of this event (also seen on CNN’s video “America
Remembers”) not only shows this anomaly, but also clearly shows the
mysterious “flash” that occurs just before the plane slams into the
south tower.

This flash is seen
in three additional angles and is directly in line with the anomaly
appearing on the bottom of the plane. PM magazine chose to not even
address the flash, an event that is irrefutably inconsistent with a simple
terrorist hijacking and is inarguably more significant than the “pod”
debate.

Note that in the
fourth angle (bottom right), the flash is to the right and below center of
the fuselage, directly in line with the “pod”. Also note that because
of the location of the flash in relation to the fuselage, “sparks” or
“static discharge” have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have
spoken with. You can actually see a reflection of the flash on the plane!
A flash was also seen in the video clip of flight 11 that reportedly hit
the north tower!

“2.
Widespread Damage” PM
also attempted to deflect the claims of explosions going off in and
around the trade center area. “People Magazine” published an
interview with Louie Cacchioli, a NYC firefighter who stated, “We
think there was bombs going off in the building”. The Naudet brothers
interview with firefighters who said, “It was like a controlled
detonation.” Countless reports on television describing, “another
explosion…” “Huge explosions”. Reports from nearly every network
of explosions in and around the trade center were conveniently ignored
and un-addressed

by
PM.

“3.
WTC 7 Collapse” The
official story states that WTC7 collapsed due to the tremendous damage
that it incurred from the collapsing north tower. Every video angle
available showed no debris hitting WTC7. Even the photograph published
in PM clearly shows the intact roof of WTC7. The interview with Larry
Silverstein, where he stated, “We decided to pull it,” in regard to
building 7 was overlooked. The video clip taken from a helicopter before
either tower had fallen showed smoke rising from WTC7 was also omitted.
The 911 Commission Report never even mentioned WTC7. Despite the fact
that never in the history of steel buildings has one collapsed from a
fire, we are to believe that it happened not just once, but three times
on 9/11.

“4. The Pentagon”
The controversy revolves around photos and video clips shot before the
collapse of the outer ring, the lack of fire or heat damage in the
immediate area, the lack of video surveillance footage, and many
inconsistencies in the official story. For example, on one hand we are
told that the entire plane was vaporized on impact, and yet we are also
told that it pierced not one, but three of the rings of the pentagon
leaving a neat round hole. The photos taken before the collapse clearly
show a small hole, 16-20 feet in diameter, and no recognizable wreckage
whatsoever. These photos were not included in the “in depth” article
published in PM. One photo published in PM shows a twisted piece of
metal, about the size of a car door, with red and white paint on it.
This transportable piece of “evidence” is touted as the wreckage of
flight 77, ignoring the fact that one piece of steel that could have
been planted does not constitute a Boeing 757.

The official story of flight 77
tells us that it was traveling at 530 MPH as it made a 330-degree turn
before slamming into the pentagon. Every airline pilot we have spoken
with has stated that at that speed, the plane would have pulled
approximately 5 G’s and torn itself apart. Physics, photos and common
sense again ignored by PM.

The editors of PM (including James
Meigs who will not return our phone calls), by ignoring or avoiding the
key pieces of evidence, have exposed themselves as participants in the
continued cover-up of the events of 911. If they truly were the
journalists they purport themselves to be, they would have included the
key pieces of evidence and dealt with them honestly and openly. Even a
small army of experts cannot provide acceptable answers if they are not
asked the right questions, nor provided vital pieces of information.

As
long as these issues continue to be avoided by the mainstream media,
they will continue to kindle and rekindle the growing controversies
surrounding 911. These screaming questions will not go away, and neither
will those asking them. Our numbers are growing internationally and are
increasing faster than the powers that be care to admit. Time is not on
their side and it is their move.